that, as he proposed to fill up the omissions of the other Evangelists in general, so he has actually filled them up, where they most stood in need of supplements; viz. in the history of the ministry in Judæa, in particular.

II. We have discovered, in the several gospel histories laid together, satisfactory proofs of four distinct Passovers, which must have been consecutive at least; the Passover, John ii. 13-the Passover, John v. 1-the Passover, John vi. 4-and the Passover, John xii. 1: and, if they were consecutive in a direct order, (as no one, who believes them to be distinct, can reasonably think of disputing,) they make up a period of three years in all. Our Lord's ministry began at the first, and ended at the last: it continued, therefore, three years between.

III. It is a remarkable fact, that after so long and systematic an absence from Jerusalem, as eighteen months before the feast of Tabernacles, John vii. 2. our Lord attended every feast, for the next six months, in its order. These attendances come in, it is true, to supply an entire, or at least a partial, blank, for the same length of time, in the other Gospels. But, what is also remarkable, these six months are the last six months of his ministry-beginning at the feast of Tabernacles, and expiring at the feast of the Passover which being the case, the reason of the fact must be sought for in the moral of the parable of the barren fig-tree; and will thence be found to have been due to some necessity, more especially incumbent on our Saviour for the concluding period of his ministry, to be diligent both in Judæa, and out of Judæa, with a view either finally to convince the Jews, and bring about the national penitence and conversion, or, at least, to leave them, without excuse, to the ultimate consequences of an invincible unbelief.

IV. As three out of the five feasts, which he actually attended, were feasts of the Passover, this circumstance proves how much more important in his estimation was his attendance at the Passover, than at any other feast; and, * Luke xiii. 6-9.

consequently, how much closer a connection there was between the facts of his history, and the purpose for which he came into the world, and the Passover, than any other feast.

V. It is also remarkable that, whereas the name of every other feast in the Jewish year, occurs in the Gospels, and the attendance of our Lord, once at least in the course of his ministry, at every other feast, is specified in the Gospels, the feast of Pentecost is not even mentioned, much less said to have been attended in person by him. I consider this a proof, in the first place, that his ministry out of Judæa began, as I have supposed, at the time of this feast, and was every year renewed, with increased activity, at the time of this feast; and, secondly, that the peculiar events, which in all probability occurred-one in each year-about the period of this feast-the call of the Apostles as disciples first-their ordination as Apostles afterwards-and our Lord's Transfiguration-bore a concealed reference to something beyond themselves, and to the facts of the future Christian history. For, I have shewn elsewherey, that the time of the feast of Pentecost, from the first effusion of the Holy Ghost, to the mission of St. Paul among the Gentiles, was the great and cardinal point, through a period of fourteen years, in every step towards the more full and complete promulgation of the Gospel.

y Vol. i. Diss. xiii. vol. ii. Diss. i.

DISSERTATION VIII.

PART II.

General prospective survey of the ministry of our Lord in Galilee.

THE history of the ministry of our Lord out of Judæa is almost entirely the history of his ministry in Galilee; and for this we are as much indebted to the three first Evangelists, as for the history of the ministry in Judæa to the fourth.

The formal commencement of this ministry is placed by them all a with the return into Galilee, posterior to the imprisonment of the Baptist; the coincidence of which with the return, mentioned in the fourth chapter of St. John b, has been demonstrated at large elsewhere. The time of the return, it has also been shewn, was very probably not earlier, though it might have been somewhat later, than the fourteenth day before the feast of Pentecost, A. U. 780. May 16: to which day we considered it necessary, for the reasons there alleged, to assign the imprisonment of the Baptist. If the ministry in Galilee, then, was begun after this return, it would be begun about the period of the feast of Pentecost, in general; and the exact time of its commencement, in particular, is specified by St. Matthew: ̓Απὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν d—where the note of time, άлò TÓTE, is to be referred to verse thirteenth before; which speaks of our Lord's taking up his abode at Capernaum. It was so long, consequently, after the actual return into Galilee, as might suffice to bring him to Capernaum, in order to take up his residence there; but no longer.

Now the first transaction, posterior to this return, as we saw from St. John, was the performance of the miracle in Cana, upon an inhabitant of Capernaum: the next, as it

a Matt. iv. 12. Mark i. 14. Luke iv. 14. Diss. vii. div. 17.

b John iv. 1. 3. 43.

Vol. ii.

appeared from St. Luke, was the visit to Nazareth; and the last only, as it appears also from the same Gospel, was the coming to Capernaum, preparatory to settling there. That these events were consecutive upon each other, and in the above order, there can be little question; and the description, attached to the name of Capernaum, as a city of Galilee, (a description which occurs here, for the first time and for the last, in St. Luke,) is sufficient to prove that the period of this visit to Capernaum, in that Evangelist, is the same with that of the similar visit, in St. Matthew f; in other words, that Matt. iv. 13. and Luke iv. 31. are coincident in point of time. It would not follow, however, that the leaving of Nazareth, which is also mentioned in the former, as previous to the settling in Capernaum, has any connection either directly or virtually with the close of the incident in the latters: the words imply no more than that whereas, before this return into Galilee, Nazareth had been our Saviour's home, so after it, and from this time forward, Capernaum became so in its stead.

The notice, therefore, which is found in St. Lukeh prior even to the visit to Nazareth, is partly the account of an effect, which had been already produced, and partly proleptical, in reference to what was thenceforward about to take place. The fame of Jesus had actually been diffused through Galilee, even before this return, by the miracles which he was known to have performed at the preceding Passoveri; and it would be still more generally disseminated by the miracle at Cana also: the news of which is seen to have reached Nazareth before he arrived there. The visit to Nazareth, and the discourse which ensued in the synagogue of that place, considered as a case in point, demonstrate both the truth of the assertion that our Lord began now to teach-and to teach in their synagogues-and also the reality of the effect, ascribed to his teaching, that he was glorified of all; for all, who heard him in the synagogue at Nazareth, are said to have borne witness unto hiv. 14. 15. i John iv. 46,

e

• iv. 31. kiv. 22.

fiv. 13.

8 iv. 16―30.

him, and to have marvelled at the words of grace, which were proceeding out of his mouth. The declaration, then, is to be understood proleptically-of what thenceforward began to take place-not historically, or of what had already taken place. A visit, indeed, to-Nazareth, and an instance of teaching, confined to the synagogue of that place, could by no means have come under the denomination of the commencement of his ministry, on a large and comprehensive scale. Nor, though St. Luke mentions here the fact of some teaching, does he mention on the same occasion the fact of any preaching also; nor, indeed, before the time when he shews our Lord to be actually engaged on the circuit of Galilee1.

As to St. Mark m, this declaration also is not inconsistent with the statement of St. Matthew"; for it may be understood simply of the final end-always proposed by this return-which was certainly such a formal publication of the gospel of the kingdom, as is here asserted; or, since he says nothing, like St. Matthew, of the choice of Capernaum, in preference to Nazareth, yet by the incident, which he proceeds to record, shews that our Lord was then either there already, or near it, there is no reason why Mark i. 14. 15. should not be considered to harmonize exactly with Matthew iv. 17: and each of them should not relate to the same point of time.

Before, therefore, we can properly enter on the survey of our Lord's ministry henceforward, there are two things which will deserve some notice, because they were preliminary, or at least prior, even to its commencement; first, the propriety of the choice of Capernaum, as the place of his stated abode; and, secondly, the propriety of the time, the period of the feast of Pentecost, at which we suppose his ministry to have begun.

First, the necessity of some fixed place of abode for our Saviour must be obvious. He could not always be in motion, or engaged upon his circuits; there must have been periods, throughout the whole duration of his ministry, of

iv. 43. 44.

mi. 14. 15.

niv. 13-17.

• i. 16.